Partial Manifesto
I like the idea of pulling made-up terms out of one's ass and acting as if they are well-established movements that the reader of said terms is already at least somewhat familiar with. Here's one: Allism. All-ism. The "ism" of all. I'm not really sure what it means but I just came up with it a few seconds ago and I will now go on to describe what it means as if I've been thinking about its exact definition for some time, or maybe even that I didn't even come up with it myself and am instead describing it to the reader of this text as an outsider to its inception, but nevertheless equipped with a fair amount of knowledge about its attributes. Allism is both a philosophy in the school of post''deconstructionism as well as a multimedia artistic movement originating in the early 21st century. The primary thesis of allism is an attempt to encompass all philosophies and artistic mediums both pre-existing and theoretical for the purpose of cultivating a vision of the philosophical and artistic landscape where the two subjects intertwine seamlessly and without '''Cerebral Interruption'. For example, a postmodernist or deconstructionist interpretation of an artistic work may insist on relativism or nihilism as the framework with which the work must be analyzed, while a more traditional interpretation of the same artistic work may insist on structuralism and even reductionism. Allism rejects neither approach but does reject the insistence on a more narrow framework that often stems from the intellectual fanclubs of both approaches. This can (and should) go beyond analysis of pre-existing works and influence the creation of the works themselves in the future. The artist should not feel restricted to the traditional landscape painting nor the abstract black square, but instead - if they feel it would fulfill the desires of their expression - feel welcome to paint a traditional landscape with a giant black square blocking two-thirds of it, or any other combination of wildly variable aesthetic dynamics. See, about fifteen minutes ago I didn't know what Allism was, and now I do, and I quite like it. This is good. Something that I feel needs to be done in fiction is to tear down the wall between the author and the reader and/or audience. This has already been proposed to an extent, perhaps most notably in Roland Barthes' 1967 essay "The Death of the Author", but the ambition itself has not been fully realized. I haven't read that essay myself, but based on its Wikipedia page I can determine that Barthes' proposal differs from mine in that Barthes seems more concerned with limiting analysis of any given text to the text itself while omitting information about the author that may cultivate certain interpretations over others. To me this isn't legitimate liberation because it is of course limiting. I recall my father recounting a story of his dissertation not being accepted initially because his writing on T.S. Eliot incorporated analysis of his works with analysis of the author's external circumstances. Apparently the scholarly authorities were fans of Barthe and weren't interested in accepting a different analytical framework than the one they had just become accustomed to themselves. Fucking sheep. Rather than restricting analysis towards exclusivity with including or excluding the author, the landscape I propose to substitute the wall's current presence will encourage whatever the analyst feels like doing. True liberation. These are not opposing ideas, merely different ideas. They have been propagandized as each other's nemeses to exploit the academic circlejerk, and that must be revealed to be the lie that it is. One of the most crucial elements that I would like to envision is a perspective change within sci-fi/fantasy/surrealist fiction. It seems that nine out of ten of these works require an audience surrogate, an outsider to the otherworldly events that occur within any given story or mythological background. You are expected to see open mouth reactions to supernatural phenomena, regardless of whether that phenomena is as commonplace as a shapeshifter or something so unfamiliar as an interdimensional vortex sucking in all life as we know it. You always get the "what the fuck" reaction so you can relate to it and connect with the event's mystery. I say, enough with that. If this phenomena has a consciousness of its own which more often than not it does, it begs the question what story or stories that phenomena possesses of its own. It has to have one, right? Or a few. Why don't we investigate? Because it is too otherworldly for us to comprehend? Bullshit. It has a fucking story to tell, and whether or not we can process it doesn't matter. It deserves representation. But what about the Directory of Ideas? That deserves representation as well, perhaps even more so. You see, everyone has a directory of ideas, whether they are consciously aware of it or not. If they are able to constitute this directory, and they have a decent amount of money and/or opportunities, they may be able to achieve enlightenment and influence/inspire future generations of artists and ideasfolk. I have a Directory of Ideas, but I am currently unable to access it. But that's only because it is September 2, 2017. Perhaps by September 3, 2017, I will have everlasting knowledge and familiarity with this directory. There's no holding ones breath and there's no counting on a particular interpretation of the uncertain, but I bet I can pull this off. Are you with me? Maybe you're an outsider. If so, I'm with you, whether or not you are with me or support me. I wonder, furiously, how this actually works. You have two stories. Maybe three, but let's say two for now. One story is about Death, not a metaphor or symbol for Death, but Death itself, personified in semi-relatable, comprehensible form. Death is a character in Story A. Death has certain characteristics that another author (or another reader) may disagree with, depending on that person's particular definition of Death. Let's say we make Death a nice character. Not a deceptive backstabbing nice but genuinely polite and compassionate. What the fuck? What have we done? Death isn't like that...is it? Regardless of whether we think it is or not, someone is bound to disagree. So we must leave room for a different interpretation. An alternative canon, so to speak. If I want to write a story within a universe that I claim to be endlessly open, the anti-George R.R. Martin mythos that not only accepts "fanfiction" but welcomes it as equal and even superior to my own writings, than I can't allow my own singular interpretation of Death to overrule or possess dominion '''over someone else's interpretation of Death. But I still want to write my goddamn story, where Death is the way I want it to be the serve the story's purpose. How do I do this? Is it not the true death? Are there other deaths in addition to it? Perhaps it has many incarnations which differ in their characteristics. Perhaps it is the same incarnation, but has not reached a certain development which alters its being entirely, allowing both radically different interpretations of Death to exist in the same developmental trajectory, the same soul and the same timeline. No. That doesn't work. It cheapens both my interpretation of death and the other's interpretation of death. But does that mean that there can only be one, and the other false? No. That's even worse. So what is the solution? How can our different interpretations of Death coexist without cheapening each other in the '''definitive canon? I don't know yet. But I hope to figure it out by morning. Okay, how about this? It's an idea that I'm already fairly familiar with. The loop in scope. Freedom and equality are not enemies. One's interpretation does not cheapen another's even if we are presented with the illusion of a hierarchy between interpretations. It is this illusion of hierarchy that keeps the reader/audience guessing as to the "truth" without realizing that the only truth that matters is the truth that inspires them to create their own fucking art. That's what they don't get. Idiots. But I digress. So my interpretation of death is in fact the one true death...within a cloud. A cloud within a pond that a higher god watches over. This higher god recognizes that there are other deaths that are suited for other clouds, and that in fact some clouds lack any death whatsoever, and the souls within those clouds don't even realize that there is any alternative to immortality. Their concept of death is reduced to the passing of time, of moments being forgotten with imperfect memories. They cannot fathom the mere idea of ceasing to exist. Or can they? See, what if one of the "authors" contributing to my limitless universe wishes for true immortality to be nonexistent? Maybe they see immortality as unjust, and they want the tower to possess a kind of justice. Well, shit. You see how hard this is? You find a certainty, you think about it for five seconds, and it's gone. LOOK. SOME TRUTHS YOU HAVE TO ACCEPT. IF PART OF YOUR TRUTH IS THAT YOUR TRUTH IS THE ONLY TRUTH, YOU ARE FUCKING WRONG. IF YOUR OPINION IS THAT EVERYONE AGREES WITH YOUR OPINION ON EVERYTHING, YOU. ARE. WRONG. IF YOUR VISION OF WHAT DEATH IS LIKE AS A CHARACTER DOESN'T COINCIDE WITH MINE, YOURS DOESN'T GET TO REIGN SUPREME. MINE EXISTS AS WELL. WE BOTH HAVE OUR CLOUDS, AND THAT'S IT. NONE OF US GET THE TOWER. UNDERSTAND? None of us get the tower. Not one. The tower is not up to me, or you. It is the culmination of all of our different viewpoints. The collective. There isn't one of us that can understand it, for it is all of us. So the cloud is what we think is the certain, the pond is what alters the certain but can also be altered, and the tower is the absolute certain, which cannot be altered, but also cannot be known. There might be a loop in scope and there might not. I don't know. But see that doesn't make sense, if the tower cannot be known then how do I know ''whether or not it can be altered? Maybe it can, maybe it can't. This is the habit that I have to break. Pretending I know more about the tower than I actually do. I know nothing about it, other than it being the truth if a definitive truth is in fact real. So let's bring it back to the conundrum introduced earlier. Death. Whether or not some souls are born within certain bleak clouds with zero chance of ever obtaining greater chances in the afterlife because they have no death to act as a gateway ''to ''the afterlife, remains a question unanswered depending on the level of pessimism the author posses. You see, the tower CAN be interpreted. Just not definitively stated to be a certain way over another. Maybe death exists for all, maybe rebirth exists for all, maybe redemption and retribution exists for all and maybe none of those things exist for anyone, and there is only endless suffering with no end in sight and no valuable meaning to the madness. Depends on the author, because that's all we have to work with. So, with all that said, as an opposite to the oxymoron of limited freedom we present to you the concept of '''unlimited consequence', which is to say that you can say whatever you want with no limitation as to the nature of the universe but the consequence of those statements is that what you say does not mean that any of what you say is in fact truth, the truth, so help us all. If you make a statement within a cloud, that statement may be true for the cloud you possess but it says nothing about the pond above it or the tower that posseses the ponds that possess the clouds. You don't know shit.